Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2019 17:56:51 GMT -5
Two things here so please bear with me.
I sometimes hear some sedevacantists say that they will go to the eastern rite clergy for sacraments (in particular confession) but not sspx.
A second issue...sometimes they also say that the eastern rite bishops still have true mission and authority while sspx does not. My question is, what is the difference between the two in these regards?
Seems to me they are similar. They both acknowledge Francis and legality aside, are both valid as far as I understand. Essentially both using traditional rites, have valid sacraments, while recognizing Francis.
If a living pope is required to bestow mission, as authority comes from the head, why would eastern rite bishops possess true mission in their view while the roman rite (trad) bishops don't possess it?
Thank you
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 15, 2019 21:18:04 GMT -5
After Vat2 the Eastern rites did not change their rite of ordination as the Roman rite did. So there is no breach of Apostolic succession as the Romans new rite is of questionable validity.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 15, 2019 21:18:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 15, 2019 23:12:14 GMT -5
Two things here so please bear with me. I sometimes hear some sedevacantists say that they will go to the eastern rite clergy for sacraments (in particular confession) but not sspx. A second issue...sometimes they also say that the eastern rite bishops still have true mission and authority while sspx does not. My question is, what is the difference between the two in these regards? Seems to me they are similar. They both acknowledge Francis and legality aside, are both valid as far as I understand. Essentially both using traditional rites, have valid sacraments, while recognizing Francis. If a living pope is required to bestow mission, as authority comes from the head, why would eastern rite bishops possess true mission in their view while the roman rite (trad) bishops don't possess it? Thank you Hi Andrew, Welcome to the forum. I am presuming that in your statement that you are referring to the apostolic succession, so I will address that prior to getting into mission and authority. I will say though from the get-go I am not disputing the apostolic succession of Roman rite bishops prior to the change in the episcopal consecration rite by Paul VI, officially dated June 18, 1968. So, in regards to the apostolic succession, the eastern bishops are only one source, not the only source of its continuance. I think it is a disputed point as to whether Latin bishops appointed after the change in rite continue the apostolic succession, although I personally think such claims are doubtful, as the common good is not served by potentially invalid bishops who have mandated since 1970 a potentially invalid rite of mass and rite of confirmation, along with other issues. The eastern rites, have maintained valid holy orders (with a few particular exceptions). They have all maintained their valid and beautiful liturgies. While there are some examples of innovations or de-latinizations, there is no Novus Ordo of the East. All eastern rites have in essence maintained their pristine liturgies with no break from Catholic theology. I would urge anyone to pour over their missals as printed even today, 2019, and using the principles put forth in the Ottaviani intervention, attempt to make the case that any eastern rite liturgy could be accused of breaking from the theology oof the mass as taught by the Council of Trent or any other pre-Vatican II teaching. With all of this in mind, I believe that the appointment of the eastern rite hierarchical bishops, serves the common good of eastern rite Catholics who are members of these rites. The common good is also served by maintaining for all Catholics, even those of the Latin rite a constant source of sacraments which can be found in eastern churches throughout the world. Lastly, the continuing supply of apostolic successors gives the Church a continuing source of papal electors if the occasion should arise. With these reasons in mind, I believe that the common good would be served by these appointments, and as there is a common error about the status of the papal claimant, that all eastern rite episcopal appointments would be supplied by the Church. Regarding SSPX, the bishops do not have or claim an office. By that very fact, they cannot have any authority. Archbishop Lefebvre did not consecrate these bishops to assume vacant sees. His vision was that he wanted to provide a constant source of valid sacraments, hence the need for priests trained to use the traditional rites, and ordained in the pre-Paul VI rites. This supply of priests would provide for Catholic’s sacramental needs until the crisis ends.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2019 8:11:32 GMT -5
Thank you both and thanks for the welcome!
Voxxkowalski: Completely agree and on the same page. I'm only referring to the traditional rite of ordination/consecration.
Pacelli: I understand what you're saying in your assesment above and follow but get stuck on the last paragraph. The part where I get a little lost is this...
Specific example in current situation: After the death of Pius XII: a.) Roman Rite, SSPX, Fellay got consecrated bishop b.) Eastern Rite, a (any) Bishop is consecrated
Both men above were consecrated using the traditional rite and without a true Pope reigning. What exactly gives the eastern rite bishop true apostolic succession and what would make it void for the sspx bishop in the example above?
What is the defining criteria to have apostolic succession in this scenario I think is what I'm trying to understand. Are you saying that because the eastern rite has a heirarchical structure to actually absorb these men into is what makes it legitimate... while the sspx on the other hand would not as sspx bishops were only consecrated for sacramental needs (mind of Lefebvre)?
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on May 16, 2019 12:40:49 GMT -5
I was waiting for Pacelli so I could post the TL; DR version: Common error likely suffices to make the appointments legit. If the Roman rite had not mutilated the consecrations of bishops, we might be in a similar situation in the Latin Church. That is: able to go to our local parish, yet maybe still in a state of sedevacante.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 16, 2019 14:26:33 GMT -5
Andrew wrote: Hi Andrew, There is a difference between apostolic succession and episcopal succession. In order for one to be an apostolic successor, the bishop must have jurisdiction. I would urge you to read these sources: How to Prove a Bishop is a Successor of the Apostles?: LINK
Episcopal Succession is Not Apostolic Succession: LINK
There are many more sources which cover this matter, but these two are very succinct and cover the matter clearly and in detail. I have also put up many other sources on the apostolic succession in the Theological Sources sub forum. The SSPX bishops do not have jurisdiction, nor do they claim to have jurisdiction. They have not claimed an office in the Church where jurisdiction is attached. These bishops are not rulers in the Church, and are “sacramental bishops.” This was the express vision of Archbishop Lefebvre who had stated that he did not even want these bishops to be the Superior General of the SSPX to not even give the appearance that they had authority over Catholics. The eastern rites have an existing hierarchical structure made up of bishops who rule over eparchies (dioceses of the east). These bishops are elected by their Synods and are approved by their Patriarchs. The Pope must give the final approval, and once confirmed, the candidate will be consecrated and then enthroned in his See. In our situation, as the line of papal claimants from Paul VI to Francis are believed to be legitimate Popes by eastern rite Catholics, and even most of Latin rite Catholics, and since there is a common error about their their status, the acts and laws of these men would be supplied by the Church, so long as the act was not harmful to the common good. It might be asked, what if a public and malicious heretic were appointed to an eastern diocese? If such a man were appointed, he could not assume the office, as he would not be a member of the Church. As of today, however, I have never read any, (not even against a single one), documented case of an accusation of heresy against any eastern rite bishop. I have also never read any case against any eastern rite bishop demonstrating that they have knowingly left the Church by joining a non Catholic sect, which in our case would be the Conciliar sect. Adherence to the current papal claimant is not proof of heresy, and is not proof that one has joined a non-Catholic sect. With that said, all of the eastern bishops must be presumed to be the lawful rulers of their Sees, unless it can be proven on a case by case basis, that one, some, or all are either malicious public heretics, or have left the Church to join a sect. It is also worth noting that laxity or liberalism is not equivalent to heresy. It is also worth mentioning that weakness and cowardice in defending the Faith, while deserving of censure, is not equivalent to heresy. One more point to consider is that acts which may cause a suspicion of heresy, even those directly mentioned in canon law, are not in and of themselves proof that the man suspected is actually a heretic. In order to accuse one of heresy, one must be able to prove using the accused words, either written or spoken, or actions, that he is knowingly denying a de fide proposition held by the Church.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 8:44:15 GMT -5
Thank you for the links and your response. I'll read them.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 17, 2019 14:23:16 GMT -5
Thank you for the links and your response. I'll read them. Andrew...side issue...take sometime to establish your profile by adding an avatar...if you need help pm me
|
|